The discussion about the pradhana of the Samkhyas starts out with a rejection of its identification with the Existence mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad (Ch.VI.ii.1):
O amiable one, before its creation, the universe was but Existence (Brahman), one without a second.
Pradhana (primal matter) has as its constituents sattva, rajas and tamas or the pure, the active and the inert. There is extensive coverage of the influence of these as regards the human character in the Bhagavad Gita. As one or the other predominates so do certain traits. When sattva is in the ascendant as with the perfect yogi then omniscience is the result. As an implication of this belief the Samkhyas identify the Upanisad primal Existence and its creative power with Pradhana. Sankara rejects this though he admits that sattva is predominant in the case of the all knowing yogi.
Besides so long as Sattva is not illumined by the consciousness of the witnessing soul, no change in Sattva can be called knowledge; and insentient Pradhana has no power to illumine. Therefore the omniscience of Pradhana is not justifiable. The all-knowingness of the Yogins cannot be quoted as an example, for they are conscious beings, so that they can become all-knowing through a perfection of their Sattva.(from Sankara's commentary: B.S.B. I.i.5)
This rejection of the identification of primal Existence as per the Ch. Up. with Pradhana is important for the establishment of coherence and consistency with the scriptures. Further on Sankara adds an objection to creative Pradhana from the perspective of design. This occurs in B.S.B. II.ii.1:
....then it is not seen in this world that any independent insentient thing that is not guided by some sentient being can produce modifications to serve some special purpose of a man; for what is not noticed in the world is that houses, palaces, beds, seats, recreation grounds, etc., are made by the intelligent engineers and others at the proper time and in a way suitable for ensuring or avoiding comfort or discomfort. So how can the inconscient Pradhana create this universe, which cannot even be mentally conceived of by the intelligent (i.e. skilful) and most far-famed architects, which is seen in the external context to consist of the earth etc. that are fit places for experiencing the results of various works, and in the context of the individual person, of the body and other things having different castes etc., in which the limbs are arranged according to a regular design, and which are seen as the seats for experiencing various fruits of actions?
Design, order and arrangement are the result of intelligent guidance which is more complex than what even highly intelligent and capable people can comprehend. Therefore insentient Pradhana cannot be the cause of the universe. This is not an Argument from Design per se only an argument against Pradhana being able to supply it. Pradhana is not an actor.